This scoping review aims to investigate the reasons for adopting the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in scholarly publishing, identify barriers to its implementation or concerns about its use, and propose improvements to enhance its effectiveness in attributing individual contributions to research articles. A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases, including ProQuest, LISA, LISTA, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. From an initial pool of 732 papers, 45 were selected for inclusion in the review. The findings indicate that, while the adoption of CRediT promotes transparency and recognition of contributions beyond traditional authorship, several challenges remain. Key barriers include limited applicability across different research types, potential ethical concerns, and conflicts among contributors. Factors contributing to slow adoption include low awareness, inconsistent implementation, and cultural resistance within the research community. Additionally, ambiguous role definitions complicate attribution and fairness. This review highlights CRediT's potential to enhance transparency and equitable recognition of diverse contributions in scholarly publishing. However, it underscores the need to address internal challenges and promote broader acceptance within the research community. Recommendations include establishing clearer role hierarchies, standardizing adoption policies, and integrating CRediT into metadata for improved contribution tracking.
Godskesen et al. (Mon,) studied this question.